October 24, 2008

Writes Glenn Reynolds, linking back to his post from last night, where he said that I was "joining the crowd suspecting a hoax."

Isn't it interesting that the women smelled the hoax while the men were such respectful believers? I guess you men have been well schooled in your gender studies classes. Let me quote something I said in the comments to my "Ashley Todd confessed" post:

This idea of believing women -- which got started in an era when too many real rape accusations were rejected -- should not become a leap of faith. Look critically at the evidence. The best version of feminism treats women as human beings, and human beings are capable of lying and doing vicious things. Don't be a chump.

"we men" have learned our place, or more precisely, what is acceptable. Men don't second-guess a charge of rape. That's now exclusively a female function.

Now you want us to critically examine the available evidence? What happens when we decide the woman is faking and its determined she's telling the truth? We know, we know. We'd be "haters". So its easier to go with the flow. Stall for time, ask for thorough investigation, and plead for calm.

"Don't be a chump" ? Sounds great - in theory. In practice, there's a hard edge of women who simply won't allow men the social space needed to hold on to any opinion that puts a woman down, somehow, somewhere. Cf. the Duke case - go check the feminist blogs' comment section to see anyone who DARED to bring up the weakness of her case get torn a new one.

Men act in the social spaces that women permit them. There's no space right now for reasoned dissent. You hew the women's line, or you keep quiet. Women can get away with it - note that it was Michelle Malkin who was the lead doubting Thomasina on this one.

There are no swift boaters my dear boy because the young Senator has done nothing in life. Other than vote present. You can not criticize nothingness. You can not demonize a blank slate. You can not make fun of a black hole.

Zachary you need to grow up. There's a desperate element on both sides. But her motivation is rooted in some mental illness or a desperate need for attention. Politics was simply part of a backdrop she leveraged to garner media attention. She'll rue this but unbalanced people often create elaborate & ungrounded fantasies for how future will play out.

How overly dramatic. Kind of like what you wrote on your blog that shows I am not a "liar":

That this girl thought she could get away with it is one thing (idiot), but more so it shows how the desperation of the anti-Obama crowd is completely out of control. Yelling "terrorist!" at a rally isn't enough for these people, obviously.

"Yelling "terrorist!" at a rally isn't enough for these people, obviously."

Yes, no one on the left ever hysterically shouted "terrorist" at a political rally before.

My responses to this nonsense are available in all the related threads. You will see that I was reasonable, pragmatic and intelligent. I'm an obviously superior gay man to Zachary. Forget about him. Turn to me for all your intelligent gay man services.

One does not need to be woman or a gay man to detect a manipulating lying hoaxing female rat and call it out.

One does if one wants to be able to show one's face in public if it turns out the woman really WAS attacked.

History has shown us that women can invent stories of being attacked and her supporters -- no matter how odious their behavior, no matter how pathetically weak her story -- will continue to be accepted in society. People who vilify women who really WERE the victims of attacks have a much rougher time of it, except in the special case of the attacker being a politically important Democrat.

In short, the small satisfaction of being publicly right about a hoaxer isn't worth the immense pain you risk if it turns out you were wrong. If you jump on the "women as victims of male evil" bandwagon there's no risk at all.

You're a pathetic liar, Zach. I don't mean you're pathetic AND a liar -- I mean you're lying, and you suck at it, so you ought to stop.

Here is the relevant section:

it shows how the desperation of the anti-Obama crowd is completely out of control. Yelling "terrorist!" at a rally isn't enough for these people, obviously. Now, they've taken to CUTTING UP THEIR OWN FACES.

"These people" refers to "the anti-Obama crowd". Yelling "terrorist" is presented as representative of this crowd. Basic English grammar, there.

"They" refers to the subject of the previous sentence, "these people" -- i.e., "the anti-Obama crowd" who yell "terrorist".

So, yes, you were in fact lumping the entire anti-Obama crowd in with the (apocryphal) folks who yell "terrorist" and cut up their own faces. Maybe you didn't mean to; you might simply be a lousy writer. But you did, and your attempts to claim you didn't are embarrassing to all who have to read them. So please, for all our sakes, either admit the truth or lie more intelligently.

"...except in the special case of the attacker being a politically important Democrat."

ha ha ha... oh, ouch.

"In short, the small satisfaction of being publicly right about a hoaxer isn't worth the immense pain you risk if it turns out you were wrong. If you jump on the "women as victims of male evil" bandwagon there's no risk at all."

True enough, Rev, but please, I implore you and every other red-blooded man - STAY OFF THAT BANDWAGON - it's headed straight for Menwithoutgonadsville, a small but unfortunately growing bedroom community in Wisconsin/New York/Northern California where all the women think they are smart, beautiful, and correct and all the men just fetch shit for them.

In 1989, as fascination with Downey's TV show began to wane, he was involved in an incident in a San Francisco International Airport restroom in which he claimed to have been attacked by neo-Nazis who painted a swastika on his face and attempted to shave his head.

Some inconsistencies in Downey's account (e.g., the swastika was painted in reverse, suggesting that Downey had drawn it himself in a mirror), and the failure of the police to find supportive evidence, led many to suspect that the incident was a hoax and a plea for attention.

A few months later, the show was canceled. Years later, during an appearance on The Howard Stern Show, Downey admitted that he had orchestrated the entire "attack" -- even shaving the front of his own head in the desperate effort to save his show from cancellation, by its syndicator, MCA.

Wading for a few minutes through the sewage of these Web sites reminds me uncannily of the time I’ve spent having political discussions in certain living rooms and coffee shops in Baghdad. The mental atmosphere is exactly the same—the wild fantasies presented as obvious truth, the patterns seen by those few with the courage and wisdom to see, the amused pity for anyone weak-minded enough to be skeptical, the logic that turns counter-evidence into evidence and every random piece of information into a worldwide conspiracy. Above all, the seething resentment, the mix of arrogance and impotent rage that burns at the heart of the paranoid style in politics.

The author cites links provided by Sullivan. Good grief, there's a great source for objective opinion. Althouse is mentioned right along with the other "sewage" sites.

Now, I wonder what this author thinks of left-wing sewage sites such as DKos, HuffPo, MYDD, and many others? Funny, the author doesn't state.

Rev, Freeman, whoever else: You know who I'm talking about when I say "anti-Obama crowd" and then call them out for yelling "terrorist." If you think this refers to "everyone" who isn't voting for Obama, you are shitty readers, how about that.

This started because Freeman told you that I believed Cutter Girl "reflected on everyone who opposes Obama," which simply isn't true. I am not your straw man, sorry.

But yet, you keep going. You really want to believe that I believe that everyone who isn't voting for Obama is desperate and just like Cutter Girl. You really want me to consider you desperate, and I'm telling you point blank that I don't!...so...why am I wasting time defending you people? You all are very clever, or something.

Darcy said...Revenant is right, as usual. I don't think it is quite fair to call men "chumps" for erring on the side of a female alleged victim.

No, Darcy, chumps is exactly what we are when we let ourselves be fooled because of the fear that if we're mistaken, women might not love us anymore. They might say we're bad men. They might give us the glaring look that says you should just shrivel up and crawl into a ditch and die. Arise, oh Brothers of the Bullshit Detectors! We have nothing to lose but our wives!

...and equally capable of being crazy as a shithouse rat. This never seemed like the "hoax" of a publicity-seeker or politico to me. It sounded like a girl who needed help.

Jen, I don't know. This is coach potato psychobabble, but this girl strikes me as being overly politicised.

I thought she might at least have been mugged, got the shiner and decided to embellish it to make political hay.

But turns out, it's not even that. It was an entire fabrication.

I read a report that said she had mental problems in the past (as if being a Paulian didn't tell you that already...), but honestly, she's the right-wing equivalent of Cindy Sheehan or Medea Benjamin to me.

Bloggers like Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who peddled the Ayers theory, and Ann Althouse, a law professor who pushed the plastic-device story, hold diametrically opposed views to those of Islamists and Arab nationalists. But their habits of mind are just the same.

My God, that is harsh despite the fact that the plastic device post was really awful.

Hey being married to someone you love and loves you back is the best thing in the world. It's just best to let your wife tell you what to do. You don't have to do it necessarily, but you do have to come up with a good excuse.

And if Packer had linked to it, that'd be real easy, huh? Now do you get why he's a shithead? You want to see the context and you've got to go looking. Packer's audience are reading the New Yorker, so we already know that they're intellectually lazy and susceptible to suggestion and confirmation bias, so do you think they're going to care enough to go looking for the context?

Packer's audience are reading the New Yorker, so we already know that they're intellectually lazy and susceptible to suggestion and confirmation bias, so do you think they're going to care enough to go looking for the context?

I used to buy the New Yorker to have it in the apt, make me look hip. But I'm over that now.

You know who I'm talking about when I say "anti-Obama crowd" and then call them out for yelling "terrorist."

Obviously we do. We even took the time to explain what you meant to any blog readers who weren't fluent in English.

If you think this refers to "everyone" who isn't voting for Obama, you are shitty readers, how about that.

I see you took my advice about lying more intelligently -- a straw man attack is much better than your previous "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes" routine.

None of us ever said you were referring to everyone who isn't voting for Obama; there are millions of people who have nothing against the man but still don't plan to vote for him. You did, however, smear everyone who is anti-Obama -- i.e., most of the non-lefties here -- by lumping us in with Ashley Todd and the apocryphal/anonymous guy who called Obama a terrorist.

Freeman told you that I believed Cutter Girl "reflected on everyone who opposes Obama," which simply isn't true

It is what you wrote. Maybe in the future you should write what you believe; it makes it easier to keep your story straight.

No, Darcy, chumps is exactly what we are when we let ourselves be fooled because of the fear that if we're mistaken, women might not love us anymore.

You confuse being quiet with being fooled. In college I got good grades from leftist professors by keeping my opinions to myself; this is just more of the same. Like the Japanese saying goes, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

You want me to take a brave stand to stop some larger cultural trend. I prefer to be passive-aggressive about it. I practice aggressive indifference on sensitive gender issues. :)

Does it strike anyone that there is something wrong with the world when an advocate for individuals with disabilities makes a reasonable plea for more money for research - citing pork in the budget - and the press goes scurrying for inaccuracies about a fruit fly remark?

As many have pointed out in this thread, plenty of men suspected a hoax but were loathe to say so. I don't like that, but given the cultural climate, I can understand it. Also, I have great respect for Glenn, and that certainly factored into my word choice of "most" rather than "some."

"This idea of believing women -- should not become a leap of faith. Look critically at the evidence. ...Don't be a chump."

ha ha ha.

Scenario 1: A woman with a history of self-cutting and male physician are in a room. Alone. A routine physical exam is done. The woman later accuses the man of sexual "touching".

There is no evidence to consider except their own stories.

Guess who's the chump?

Scenario 2: A young woman (19) and her grandfather (in his 60s) are in a room alone for one hour. She later claims he "touched her" sexually. He's flabbergasted and denies it vehemently. It goes to court. The lawyer tells him You have a one in ten chance of winning, zero if she cries on the stand. He pleads and gets six months in jail and then the sentence is expunged. But he is not allowed to be in a room alone with his granddaughters. No one in the extended family believes the granddaughter, BTW.

Dear Prof. you should exile yourself to PC Hell for being so darned anti-PC. Have you joined the FemiNazis, the NAGS? Are you one of those, who during the 70's said that all men should be killed and women would then populate the Earth?

Seriously, but this has been so darned much fun, please note that some of us men smelled a hoax right up front and expressed caution about accepting that phony beating story.

Althouse - This idea of believing women -- which got started in an era when too many real rape accusations were rejected -- should not become a leap of faith.

As you pointed out, this was the feminist PC squad that stridently lectured an eager, complicit media that "women never lie about something as serious as rape or sexual harassment" - buttressed by the usual feminist statistics later to have been found to be concocted or anecdotal (a female cop I met said women never lie in any sex case she dealt with!).

That phase of female hysteria was diminished somewhat when feminist after feminist fell on their swoards denouncing the lying sluts that accused their woman's man, and the "feminist progressive man" himself, Bill Clinton, of harassment or other sexual pecadillos.

But it persisted into the Duke Rape Trial - where again a feminist rape intake nurse and a lying crackwhore were believed - since women never lie.

This "women never lie" politics of intimidation - of course followed the Child Molestation version of the Salem witchcraft trials - where juries and prosecutors were pounded by "feminist and child expert psychologists" that "Children Never Lie!"

But they did. And convictions were actually meted out despite child witnesses saying that "mean Ms. Ambrister and her son" controlled a robot dressed as a clown that stuck a knife in my special place..

And yes, the police have a duty to take every rape story seriously - but like the hard feminist rape nurse at Duke that cost her employer many 10s of millions - Tara Levicy - they also have an obligation to be impartial and come to each case with good judgment and healthy skepticism

Meaning when a 250-lb. "well-ridden" drug addict 'ho comes in and says that she was raped by three millionaires in a stretch limo after being promised 200 thousand dollars and the men are making their escape from the state - the cops are not obligated to run around screaming "Believe the Woman! Believe the Woman!" and issue an all points bulletin to stop all stretch limos and ground all private jets..

Well, Jesus it's Pittsburgh, land of fucking nerdy beer swilling weirdos, knuckle-dragging mongoloids. and goofy looking fat-chicks who probably paid the nerdy beer swilling weirdos to punch her fatso marshmellow face in and probably gave a blow-job to the knuckle-dragging mongoloid living around her corner to carve the 'B' on her misshapen head right after.

Hey!!! Maybe the 'B' is for her nickname, Blow-job or Bloated or Beast or something that conjures images of a lonely loser Pittsburg fat-chick seeking attention by claiming to get pseudo-raped by a darkie.